Report in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine finds health service second only to Ireland for cost-effectiveness The NHS is one of the most cost-effective health systems in the developed world, according to a study (pdf) published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. The “surprising” findings show the NHS saving more lives for each pound spent as a proportion of national wealth than any other country apart from Ireland over 25 years. Among the 17 countries considered, the United States healthcare system was among the least efficient and effective. Researchers said that this contradicted assertions by the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, that the NHS needed competition and choice to become more efficient. “The government proposals to change the NHS are largely based on the idea that the NHS is less efficient and effective than other countries, especially the US,” said Professor Colin Pritchard, of Bournemouth University, who analysed a quarter of a century’s data from 1980. “The results question why we need a big set of health reform proposals … The system works well. Look at the US and you can see where choice and competition gets you. Pretty dismal results.” The study will be a blow for Lansley, who argues that patients should choose between competing hospital services and GPs. Pritchard’s last academic paper, which argued that surgeons were being distracted from frontline work by “unfunded” targets in the NHS, was used by Lansley to justify government reforms. Using the latest data from the World Health Organisation, the paper shows that although Labour’s tax-and-spend strategy for the NHS saw health spending rise to a record 9.3% of GDP, this was less than Germany with 10.7% or the US with 15%. Not only was the UK cheaper, says the paper, it saved more lives. The NHS reduced the number of adult deaths a million of the population by 3,951 a year – far better than the nearest comparable European countries. France managed 2,779 lives a year and Germany 2,395. This means, the paper says, that dramatic NHS improvements have led to a situation where that there are now 162,000 fewer deaths every year compared with 1980. The paper says the US suffers from a “relatively huge bureaucratic burden needed to monitor the costs, behaviour and risks of customers, as well as the immense legal costs required to control payment”. Looking at elderly patients, the difference was even more stark with the best performers – Ireland, the UK and New Zealand – having health systems that were three times more effective and efficient than the worst – Switzerland, Portugal and the US. Pritchard said that only Ireland’s position today would be significantly different – because its economy has shrunk. “I think Ireland would have slipped back today.” The paper also takes Lansley to task over his claims that “if UK cancer survival rates were at the European average, we know we would save 5,000 extra lives a year.” It says: “In terms of actual cancer mortality rates, rather than the more ambiguous ‘survival’ rates, the UK had better results … which appears to be linked to major additional funds going to cancer care.” Pritchard points out that even Adam Smith, the Scottish economist and father of market-based ideology, thought the state was “probably better” at health and education. “It’s naive to think that Lansley does not want more privatised health service. But there’s no evidence why it be better. There’s a lot to suggest it would be worse.” A Department of Health spokesman said that the paper was “mistaken to think that competition is an end in itself, or will necessarily increase the independent sector’s role in the NHS”. He added: “Under our modernisation plans we are improving choice for patients to drive up the quality of care and improve patient experience … We are investing an extra £12.5bn in the NHS to improve the quality of services and safeguard the NHS for future generations.” ENDS NHS Health policy Liberal-Conservative coalition Health Andrew Lansley Conservatives Randeep Ramesh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Poll shows 77-year-old broadcaster, best known for the Late Late Show, is hugely popular with voters For decades, he has played the part of Ireland’s on-air confessor, listening sympathetically as guests shared their most intimate stories with him – and, of course, thousands of viewers. In a somewhat surprising turn of events, the talkshow host Gay Byrne looks likely to be the Irish people’s choice for president. Now that Senator David Norris has dropped out of the race, pressure is building on Byrne to launch a bid for the presidency. The silver-haired host of the Late Late Show said he would give “serious consideration” to running if offered a nomination. Norris, who is openly gay, dropped his candidacy after it emerged he had used Irish parliamentary notepaper to write to the Israeli authorities pleading clemency for an ex-lover found guilty of the statutory rape of a 15-year-old boy. Ireland’s main opposition party Fianna Fáil said Byrne would “make an excellent candidate”. An opinion poll in the Dublin Sunday Independent put Byrne way ahead of all other candidates on 34%. The paper claimed support for Norris, who was the most popular candidate, had switched to Byrne. Byrne told the paper: “I would have to consider it seriously … But I would have to consult with ‘she who must be obeyed’ because any mention of presidency would mean a huge disruption to our lives.” The 77-year-old presenter, who is still making programmes for the Irish state broadcaster, RTE, would need the backing of 20 parliamentarians or nominations from several county councils before putting his name forward. The potential entry of one of the most famous faces on Irish TV, known affectionately as Gaybo, has re-ignited interest in October’s election. Several generations of voters have grown up watching Byrne, who has helped break social taboos in Ireland since the late 1960s. Issues such as sex before marriage and homosexuality were openly discussed for the first time on his hit TV and radio shows. It is often said that sex was only introduced into Ireland once The Late Late Show started. Ireland Europe Television Henry McDonald guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Spain’s 18th Duchess of Alba overcomes disapproval of children and royal household by giving away her inheritance early She is one of the richest women in Spain, owns a dozen castles whose walls are hung with works by Goya, Velázquez and Titian and is a distant relative of King James II, Winston Churchill and Diana, Princess of Wales. Now, however, the 18th Duchess of Alba is giving away her immense personal fortune in order to be free to marry a minor civil servant. According to Guinness World Records, Maria del Rosario Cayetana Alfonsa Victoria Eugenia Francisca Fitz-James Stuart y de Silva, born in Madrid’s Palacio de Lira, has more titles than any noble on earth, being a duchess seven times over, a countess 22 times and a marquesa 24. As head of the 539-year-old House of Alba, her privileges include not having to kneel before the pope and the right to ride on horseback into Seville cathedral. But the children of the duchess, 85, have until now blocked her plans to marry Alfonso Díez, 24 years her junior. The duchess and Díez, a civil servant in the department of social security who also runs a PR business, have been close friends for a number of years. Her six children who, as she likes to point out, are all divorced, were all borne from her first marriage to Pedro Luis Martínez de Irujo y Artazcoz, son of the Duke of Sotomayor, who died in 1972. The duchess, who is rumoured to have undergone extensive cosmetic surgery, shocked the nation when in 1978 she remarried, this time to the former Jesuit priest and intellectual, Jesús Aguirre y Ortiz de Zárate. Aguirre, who died in 2001, was illegitimate, something scandalous even in 1970s Spain. In 2008 it appeared that the proposed marriage to Díez had been called off when the House of Alba issued a statement saying that the relationship “was based on a long friendship and there are no plans to marry”. The statement came after an alleged telephone call from King Juan Carlos discouraging the duchess from marrying Díez. But whatever the king thinks it now appears the duchess is going ahead with the marriage, and the details have now emerged of how she plans to overcome her children’s opposition: by giving them their inheritance in advance, even though Díez has signed a document renouncing any claim to her wealth. “Alfonso doesn’t want anything. All he wants is me,” she said earlier this year. According to a report published in Spanish newspaper El País, her eldest son Carlos inherits the Liria Palace in Madrid and the Monterrey Palace in Salamanca, as well as overall control of the family fortune. Much of the patrimony is managed by a foundation and, in return for tax breaks, belongs by law to the nation and cannot be sold. However, the duchess’s personal wealth is estimated at between €600m and €3.5bn and she has been able to give her children and eight grandchildren a palace each, as well as a chunk of the thousands of acres of Spain that she owns. Her only daughter, Eugenia, inherits an estate in Ibiza and a further 600 acres near Seville. The duchess insists she is not that wealthy. “I have a lot of artworks, but I can’t eat them, can I?” she has protested. The art that she cannot eat includes, aside from hundreds of paintings, a first edition of Don Quixote, Columbus’ first map of America and the last will and testament of Fernando the Catholic, father of Catherine of Aragon. Spain Celebrity Stephen Burgen guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Former deputy prime minister says it is ‘time for change’ as current rules ‘loaded’ against constituency interests The former deputy prime minister Lord Prescott has backed plans by the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, to weaken the power of trade unions in Labour party conference votes. In an interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show on Sunday , Prescott said it was “time for change” because the current rules – which give the unions 50% of the vote at conference – were seen as “loaded” against the interests of ordinary members in constituency parties. He cited his defeat in a contest to become the party’s treasurer last year as one reason why he was in favour of reform. Despite winning a clear majority in the constituency section of the contest, he was defeated by the union candidate, Diana Holland, after she won almost 100% of the votes cast by unions. Prescott is normally perceived as a champion of union interests, and his support will help Miliband in what is likely to be the toughest battle he has faced to reform his party since winning the leadership last year. Even Tony Blair balked at giving the unions less than half the vote at conference. Prescott said proposing changes to Labour’s constitution was “always controversial”, but insisted Milband was right to address the issue. “There is a feeling in the constituencies that perhaps the power of the trade unions has been loaded a bit against the constituencies,” he said. “When I stood for treasurer, I got 63% of the actual votes of the constituencies and hardly anything from the unions because three or four general secretaries decided I wasn’t going to be the one and therefore didn’t ballot their members. So it’s time for change.” Prescott suggested Miliband’s move was similar to John Smith’s decision to introduce one member, one vote for the selection of parliamentary candidates in 1993. “There may be resistance to [Miliband's plans] – there was against one member, one vote – and then the conference will make a decision,” said Prescott, who helped Smith win one member, one vote with a passionate speech that became famous both for its incoherence and its effectiveness. He also called Miliband “a man of reform”. Dismissing suggestions that the Labour leader was failing to make an impact, he added: “If you’re the leader of the Labour party and you want to make change, it’ll take you more than a week … he has only been in the job for 12 months, but he has made some headway.” Milband has been privately discussing plans with the unions. As the Guardian revealed last week , one plan is for Labour’s national policy forum to get a share of the vote at conference, thus diluting the unions’ influence. In a further move that could antagonise the unions, Miliband wants to change the rules for the election of Labour’s leader. One idea that has been floated is for registered supporters to get a vote. Miliband set out the case for reform in Refounding Labour, a consultation document prepared by Peter Hain and published in March. Although the document avoided specific recommendations, it made it clear that Miliband regarded the status quo as unacceptable. “Constitutionally, conference is the supreme decision-making body of the party,” the document said. “But it has been undermined by the smaller number of constituency parties sending delegates, the increasing concentration of union votes and a command and control culture which was sometimes seen at odds with dissent and diversity.” Miliband’s plans are likely to generate a fierce debate at this year’s party conference in Liverpool. But he may decide to postpone a decision on some of his proposals until the publication, in October, of a report from the committee on standards in public life on the funding of political parties. This is because its recommendations are likely to have repercussions for Labour’s links with the unions. John Prescott Trade unions Ed Miliband Labour Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Mike Huckabee: President Obama Should Nominate Donald Trump to be Treasury Secretary
August 7, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media After the decision by Standard and Poor’s to downgrade the United States credit rating to AA+, it appears all of the conservatives are now after Tim Geithner’s scalp for saying that the United States was not in danger of having this happen. So who did Mike Huckabee think President Obama should nominate to replace him if he goes on this Saturday’s Fox & Friends? Donald Trump. Not to defend Tim Geithner in any way, shape or form because I’m no fan of his to put it mildly, but Donald Trump Mike? This is the same guy that had to file for bankruptcy four times . And he’s also the same guy who said this — Trump to GOP: Force U.S. default to make sure Obama isn’t re-elected . And that doesn’t even take into account that he’s suggesting that President Obama would want to nominate someone who’s a birther for anything. Click here to view this media
Continue reading …
Scott Bennell-Smith and Patrick Flinders will be flown back to Britain under care of specialist medical team Two members of an expedition injured in a polar bear attack in which a 17-year-old was killed will return to the UK on Sunday, the organisers of the trip have said. Scott Bennell-Smith and Patrick Flinders will be flown back to Britain under the care of a specialist medical evacuation team, BSES Expeditions confirmed. The organisation, formerly British Schools Exploring Society, asked for the pair’s privacy to be respected. Horatio Chapple, from Salisbury, in Wiltshire, died in the attack in Svalbard, Norway, on Friday. Four others, including Bennell-Smith and Flinders, were injured when the bear attacked their camp. The five were part of a group camping on the Von Postbreen glacier, near Longyearbyen, Svalbard. They had been researching climate change, documenting changes to the glacier since previous expeditions. Horatio’s family described him as “strong, fearless and kind”, and had been “so excited about his plans to be a doctor”. In a statement they praised his “amazing sense of humour and ability to laugh at himself”, adding: “He was on the cusp of adulthood and had a clear vision of where his life was going.” Eton College, where the teenager was a pupil, said: “Horatio was a very well-liked member of the school and respected by masters and boys alike. His loss is devastating to those who knew him. We extend our sympathy and condolences to Horatio’s family and friends.” Plans are being made to bring home the other injured – Michael “Spike” Reid, the expedition leader who shot the bear, and Andy Ruck – when doctors and transport authorities allowed, BSES said. Reid’s father spoke of his pride at his son’s bravery, saying: “He told us the bear attacked the tent with three people in it, and he and another leader went to help and were viciously attacked by the bear. He managed to get away, ran to get a gun and shot the bear. “The other members of the group said he was very, very brave.” Michael Reid, 29, from London, sustained injuries to his face and neck. Fellow expedition leader Ruck, 27, believed to be from Aberdeen, was also seriously hurt. Bennell-Smith and Flinders, who was said to have punched the bear on the nose to escape, sustained less serious wounds. On Saturday, BSES announced that it had decided to end the expedition on the advice of the Svalbard authorities and in accordance with the wishes of the group leaders. Police are investigating the incident. A spokesman for the governor of Svalbard said: “It is now known that the polar bear was killed by a single rifle shot. It has now been transported to Longyearbyen and will be investigated by specialists.” Norway Arctic Europe Polar regions Wildlife Animals guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Smart Beginnings – State of Virginia’s Early Education Program This seems like an easy thing to support: most of the critical brain development in human beings occurs in the first five years of life. Critical synapses are being built that will carry each child into adulthood. Study after study show the positive impact of early childhood education: children are more likely to graduate from high school and attend college, less likely to live in poverty, have a teenage pregnancy, commit a crime and be incarcerated, in general, being a productive member of society. So it would seem like — you should pardon the expression — a no brainer to get behind early childhood education. But not if you’re Rick Santorum. The man who prays you can’t spell “Santorum” in the Google search engine thinks that edumacating young children is a dangerous thing: enlarge Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum has added another unconventional platform issue to his conservative campaign: opposing early childhood education. In a town hall in Iowa, the presidential candidate made clear he opposed any programs to put children in school as soon as possible, warning that they were ploys for socialists to take “your children from the womb so they can indoctrinate your children as to what they want them to be.” Santorum was quoted in the Des Moines Register speaking to a town hall this week, demanding that education be individualized. Somewhere along the track, however, he began to attack all early childhood education, arguing that parents should be educating children– not teachers– and that the threat of indoctrination loomed with public school education, particularly in early years: “It is a parent’s responsibility to educate their children. It is not the government’s job. We have sort of lost focus here a little bit. Of course, the government wants their hands on your children as fast as they can. That is why I opposed all these early starts and pre-early starts, and early-early starts. They want your children from the womb so they can indoctrinate your children as to what they want them to be. I am against that,” he said. “We need to get the federal government out of that business. We need a leader in Washington to start talking with the states and the communities to rally parents to demand that the educational establishment in this country start meeting the needs of their child, not children. See, that is the difference. Obviously, socialists love children, just like they love people in groups of one million or more,” he said. Frankly, the only way he’s going to get people to vote for him is to have them stupid and uneducated, so maybe taking this kind of mind-blowingly idiotic and short-sighted stance is his tactic to stay in the race.
Continue reading …Arianna Huffington Flat Out Lies About Investment Firm’s Economic Opinion of Debt Ceiling Deal
August 7, 2011 No Comment
Joining our growing list of media members willing to flat out lie on national television to advance their political agendas is Arianna Huffington who falsely claimed this week that securities firm JPMorgan warned its clients the debt ceiling agreement “is going to reduce our growth by a point-and-a-half.” Such was dishonestly said during a segment of CNN's “Fareed Zakaria GPS” aired Sunday (video follows with transcript and commentary): FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: Now, you look at this and you say – I heard you somewhere say, if Obama thought he was playing for independence by being the grown-up in the middle, it didn't work. Why? ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Right. Well, you see the CNN polls. You see over 60 percent of Independents are opposed to the deal. So if Obama thought that this was really his way of saying to Independents, I'm the grown-up in the room, I'm going to compromise, go with me, it's not working. So on purely economic terms, this is not working. I mean you had Larry Summers on your show say that without growth, you are not ever going to be able to really deal with the deficit crisis. You had JPMorgan and with their top clients this week saying that this deal is going to reduce our growth by a point-and-a-half. So you had basically a con – a pretty reasonable consensus among economists, this is not the right policy long-term to control the deficit. So if this is a political play from Obama. It's failed, because Independents are turning on him and the deal. “So you had basically a con.” And she should know, for as reported Tuesday by the website Zero Hedge, Huffington was only off by 400 percent: As such, regardless of how the Committee fares, it appears that a first rough estimate is that the total tightening implied by the recent legislation would subtract about 0.3%-point from GDP growth next year. That's right. JPMorgan predicted the spending cuts in the debt ceiling agreement would reduce 2012's GDP by about 0.3 percentage points NOT 1.5. In reality, as Huffington likely got this from the shills at Think Progress who she so often refers to, it appears that not only is her honesty in question but so is her reading comprehension. TP's reference Wednesday to the JPMorgan opinion accurately noted “a combination of the stimulus ending, the debt ceiling deal, the payroll tax cut expiring, and aid to states slowing down — will cost the U.S. 1.7 points of GDP growth next year.” Again, from JPMorgan's opinion: This drag may appear fairly small, but it is on top of the substantial tightening that was already in place prior to the passage of the debt deal. Most of that fiscal tightening comes about through the automatic expiration of temporary stimulus measures. The table below details those measures, the largest of which is the one-year 2%-point payroll tax holiday, which expires next January. Other large programs that are scheduled to expire or phase out are emergency unemployment benefits, accelerated depreciation, increased transfers to the states, and much of the remaining spending associated with the 2009 Recovery Act. All in all, by our estimates federal fiscal policy will subtract around 1-3/4%-points from GDP growth next year. So, it is the combination of a variety of factors including the debt ceiling agreement which in JPMorgan's view will cut around 1.75 percentage points from GDP next year. It appears that not only is Huffington completely willing to misrepresent the economic projections of others, she's also incapable of getting any of their assessments right. Exactly why would someone lacking both integrity and credibility be allowed to offer totally erroneous opinions on the supposedly “Most trusted name in news?”
Continue reading …
The solution to our raging unemployment rate is so simple, I'm kicking myself for not thinking of it before.
Continue reading …